"John Bolton's mustache is more qualified to be national security adviser than he is."

By David Rothkopf, March 22, 2018

News outlets have reported that President Donald Trump has decided to replace his national security adviser, H.R. McMaster. Trump was supposedly waiting to announce the decision until he could find a good next posting for McMaster, who remains an active-duty Army general.

The rationale was that this would be more dignified for McMaster. But of course, leaking the news of his imminent firing had the opposite effect. And it not only humiliated the general, it also undermined the effectiveness of the entire US national security apparatus at an extremely sensitive time when we face complex challenges involving North Korea, Iran, Russia and many other issues. This being the Trump administration, this vitally important decision was undertaken with all the calm discipline of a "Ren and Stimpy" cartoon. The t***h could be, for example, that one of the main reasons no announcement was made is that while Trump knew he wants the independent-minded McMaster gone, he didn't know who he wanted to replace him.

He has now selected John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has distinguished himself as one of America's most hawkish and ineffective diplomats for decades. He is known as an architect of the Iraq War, an enemy of multi-lateralism and foe of the United Nations, where he served during the George W. Bush administration through a recess appointment when he could not win Senate confirmation. He is also a harsh critic of the Iran nuclear deal and of North Korea, and is seen as someone who might promote conflict in both cases. Few prominent national security figures are as ill-suited to the job of national security adviser as Bolton when you consider his views, his temperament and his ability to be an honest broker. In fact, he is actually one of the few people on earth who would be worse than Mike Flynn, who was the worst national security adviser of all time.

That said, in Trump-land even the most outrageously grim developments have an absurdist subtext. In Bolton's case, this was illustrated by a tweet from CBS News' Jacqueline Alemany: "Just asked a source close to the White House if John Bolton's mustache will go if he replaces McMaster as National Security Advisor. Source doesn't think the 'stache will go but call it a 'sensitive subject.' " That such a thing is even being discussed because of Trump's predilection for clean-shaven aides and people who 'look the part' reminds us just how off the rails we have gone.
Having reviewed the available options and the nation's national security needs, if Bolton's famed mustache must go, I would strongly support it for the job over him.

To be fair, there are other reported candidates who would be solid, sensible choices. Former Bush National Security Council official Stephen Biegun is serious, experienced and respected in ways that neither Bolton nor his mustache will ever be. But, then again, so was McMaster.

Therein lies the rub. More than almost any other job in government that of national security adviser is defined and then on a daily basis redefined by the President. The job is ill-defined by statute. The president determines whether he will empower the national security adviser by respecting the process he or she runs and heeding the advice that process produces. If the president does not or if he is disinclined to take advantage of the rich resources of the National Security Council staff because he doesn't for example, like to read ... or if he undermines the national security adviser, as Trump has done with McMaster, then even the very best candidate will fail. The most effective national security advisers, such as Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski, were empowered by their presidents in ways that would be impossible given Trump's narcissistic personality and volatility.

There are few jobs in the executive branch more important than national security adviser. And particularly at this dangerous moment, with turmoil both overseas and within the US government, with a personnel shuffle rocking the national security apparatus at the State Department, CIA and in the White House, how this t***sition is handled is especially important. So far it has gone about as badly as can be imagined.

Unfortunately, even if Trump had made a good choice to replace the ill-treated McMaster, it is unlikely to fix what is broken at the National Security Council. Because that's not the national security adviser, it is the President --c*********d, erratic, inexperienced, possessed of terrible instincts, corrupt and disrespectful of his office and those who serve around him as he is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"David Rothkopf is a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of "Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power" and "The Great Questions of Tomorrow." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. This commentary has been updated to reflect the news."

"John Bolton's mustache is more qualified to be national security adviser than he is."

By David Rothkopf, March 22, 2018

News outlets have reported that President Donald Trump has decided to replace his national security adviser, H.R. McMaster. Trump was supposedly waiting to announce the decision until he could find a good next posting for McMaster, who remains an active-duty Army general.

The rationale was that this would be more dignified for McMaster. But of course, leaking the news of his imminent firing had the opposite effect. And it not only humiliated the general, it also undermined the effectiveness of the entire US national security apparatus at an extremely sensitive time when we face complex challenges involving North Korea, Iran, Russia and many other issues. This being the Trump administration, this vitally important decision was undertaken with all the calm discipline of a "Ren and Stimpy" cartoon. The t***h could be, for example, that one of the main reasons no announcement was made is that while Trump knew he wants the independent-minded McMaster gone, he didn't know who he wanted to replace him.

He has now selected John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has distinguished himself as one of America's most hawkish and ineffective diplomats for decades. He is known as an architect of the Iraq War, an enemy of multi-lateralism and foe of the United Nations, where he served during the George W. Bush administration through a recess appointment when he could not win Senate confirmation. He is also a harsh critic of the Iran nuclear deal and of North Korea, and is seen as someone who might promote conflict in both cases. Few prominent national security figures are as ill-suited to the job of national security adviser as Bolton when you consider his views, his temperament and his ability to be an honest broker. In fact, he is actually one of the few people on earth who would be worse than Mike Flynn, who was the worst national security adviser of all time.

That said, in Trump-land even the most outrageously grim developments have an absurdist subtext. In Bolton's case, this was illustrated by a tweet from CBS News' Jacqueline Alemany: "Just asked a source close to the White House if John Bolton's mustache will go if he replaces McMaster as National Security Advisor. Source doesn't think the 'stache will go but call it a 'sensitive subject.' " That such a thing is even being discussed because of Trump's predilection for clean-shaven aides and people who 'look the part' reminds us just how off the rails we have gone.
Having reviewed the available options and the nation's national security needs, if Bolton's famed mustache must go, I would strongly support it for the job over him.

To be fair, there are other reported candidates who would be solid, sensible choices. Former Bush National Security Council official Stephen Biegun is serious, experienced and respected in ways that neither Bolton nor his mustache will ever be. But, then again, so was McMaster.

Therein lies the rub. More than almost any other job in government that of national security adviser is defined and then on a daily basis redefined by the President. The job is ill-defined by statute. The president determines whether he will empower the national security adviser by respecting the process he or she runs and heeding the advice that process produces. If the president does not or if he is disinclined to take advantage of the rich resources of the National Security Council staff because he doesn't for example, like to read ... or if he undermines the national security adviser, as Trump has done with McMaster, then even the very best candidate will fail. The most effective national security advisers, such as Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski, were empowered by their presidents in ways that would be impossible given Trump's narcissistic personality and volatility.

There are few jobs in the executive branch more important than national security adviser. And particularly at this dangerous moment, with turmoil both overseas and within the US government, with a personnel shuffle rocking the national security apparatus at the State Department, CIA and in the White House, how this t***sition is handled is especially important. So far it has gone about as badly as can be imagined.

Unfortunately, even if Trump had made a good choice to replace the ill-treated McMaster, it is unlikely to fix what is broken at the National Security Council. Because that's not the national security adviser, it is the President --c*********d, erratic, inexperienced, possessed of terrible instincts, corrupt and disrespectful of his office and those who serve around him as he is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"David Rothkopf is a senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the author of "Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power" and "The Great Questions of Tomorrow." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. This commentary has been updated to reflect the news."

I agree that the position of National Security Advisor is one that requires an extremely high level of capability. That's why I'm relieved that Trump has put into that position people who meet the criteria. First he nominated Flynn who became the victim of Deep State wiretaps so had to withdraw. But there's no doubt he had the credentials. Then came McMaster who also has the gravitas to successfully fulfill the role. And former ambassador Bolton also has the credentials.
Compare those choices with the clowns nominated by the previous administration. Brennan, a t*****r who converted to Islam while working in the middle east, who strongly supported the Iran nuclear deal. Who was replaced by Susan Rice, the pathological liar who asserted that Bengazhi was caused by a video that nobody saw. And who wrote an email to herself several weeks after the fact, about Obama telling his national security team to do everything by the book. Sure! Why wouldn't we believe her? As far as her background, her only experience occurred in the faculty lounge.
Obama put in a bunch of color coded sycophants to serve him and that's just one more reason why he was such a failure. Between Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Clapper, and his other yes-people, they did exactly what Obama wanted. They weren't qualified. Trump's nominees are all qualified. Trump is merely now getting people in those positions who are good fits with his agenda.

I agree that the position of National Security Advisor is one that requires an extremely high level of capability. That's why I'm relieved that Trump has put into that position people who meet the criteria. First he nominated Flynn who became the victim of Deep State wiretaps so had to withdraw. But there's no doubt he had the credentials. Then came McMaster who also has the gravitas to successfully fulfill the role. And former ambassador Bolton also has the credentials.
Compare those choices with the clowns nominated by the previous administration. Brennan, a t*****r who converted to Islam while working in the middle east, who strongly supported the Iran nuclear deal. Who was replaced by Susan Rice, the pathological liar who asserted that Bengazhi was caused by a video that nobody saw. And who wrote an email to herself several weeks after the fact, about Obama telling his national security team to do everything by the book. Sure! Why wouldn't we believe her? As far as her background, her only experience occurred in the faculty lounge.
Obama put in a bunch of color coded sycophants to serve him and that's just one more reason why he was such a failure. Between Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Clapper, and his other yes-people, they did exactly what Obama wanted. They weren't qualified. Trump's nominees are all qualified. Trump is merely now getting people in those positions who are good fits with his agenda.

I agree that the position of National Security Advisor is one that requires an extremely high level of capability. That's why I'm relieved that Trump has put into that position people who meet the criteria. First he nominated Flynn who became the victim of Deep State wiretaps so had to withdraw. But there's no doubt he had the credentials. Then came McMaster who also has the gravitas to successfully fulfill the role. And former ambassador Bolton also has the credentials.
Compare those choices with the clowns nominated by the previous administration. Brennan, a t*****r who converted to Islam while working in the middle east, who strongly supported the Iran nuclear deal. Who was replaced by Susan Rice, the pathological liar who asserted that Bengazhi was caused by a video that nobody saw. And who wrote an email to herself several weeks after the fact, about Obama telling his national security team to do everything by the book. Sure! Why wouldn't we believe her? As far as her background, her only experience occurred in the faculty lounge.
Obama put in a bunch of color coded sycophants to serve him and that's just one more reason why he was such a failure. Between Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Clapper, and his other yes-people, they did exactly what Obama wanted. They weren't qualified. Trump's nominees are all qualified. Trump is merely now getting people in those positions who are good fits with his agenda.

<Koff, choke, spew> If you consider this bunch of sycophants as qualified for cabinet positions, you've been smoking something waaaaaaaay too strong for you.

Bolton- a bomb-thrower from way back that wants war with both North Korea and Iran, both of whom have standing armies and weaponry that matches ours, and would require invading to suppress. Mucho casualties.

Pompeo- a political hack whose experience in Congress in foreign relations was through the lens of committee oversight.

Carson- totally unqualified to run the department with absolutely no relevant experience.

Ross- no experience in governing or economics.

Mnuchin- a billionaire stockbroker who sees the economy as a tool for enrichment of the 1% and has absolutely no idea how to run the Treasury department or the economy. Makes suggestions for change that are unconstitutional on their face without constitutional amendment (line item veto) and will spout the Trump line regardless of how stupid the concept.

DeVoss- totally unqualified for the position with absolutely no relevant experience except pushing charter schools and k*****g public education in Michigan.

Pruitt- a well-known anti-environmentalist who has sued the EPA numerous times to k**l regulations, and is now in charge of said department. Also paranoid with tendencies to fly first-class at taxpayer expense.

Sessions- another political hack who has extremist views on discrimination and civil rights. Was rejected for a federal judgeship because of r****t views.

Zinke- No real experience in land management, and wants to open almost all federal land to exploitation by petro and mining interests at the expense of the environment.

Perdue- absolutely no experience in government. Former chicken rancher with no concept of how the farm economies of the midwest operate.

This is a partial list, and I could find many more if I wanted to spend the time. If this is your idea of 'well-qualified', then I'd h**e to have to work for you. But you are right in one respect ... they are a good fit for Trump's agenda.

One point to remember out of all this ... people who are insecure in their positions and abilities will always have people that are inferior to them in ability, so as to not jeopardize their own standing. And with this president, that bar is set waaaaaaaaaaaay too low.

<Koff, choke, spew> If you consider this bunch of sycophants as qualified for cabinet positions, you've been smoking something waaaaaaaay too strong for you.

Bolton- a bomb-thrower from way back that wants war with both North Korea and Iran, both of whom have standing armies and weaponry that matches ours, and would require invading to suppress. Mucho casualties.

Pompeo- a political hack whose experience in Congress in foreign relations was through the lens of committee oversight.

Carson- totally unqualified to run the department with absolutely no relevant experience.

Ross- no experience in governing or economics.

Mnuchin- a billionaire stockbroker who sees the economy as a tool for enrichment of the 1% and has absolutely no idea how to run the Treasury department or the economy. Makes suggestions for change that are unconstitutional on their face without constitutional amendment (line item veto) and will spout the Trump line regardless of how stupid the concept.

DeVoss- totally unqualified for the position with absolutely no relevant experience except pushing charter schools and k*****g public education in Michigan.

Pruitt- a well-known anti-environmentalist who has sued the EPA numerous times to k**l regulations, and is now in charge of said department. Also paranoid with tendencies to fly first-class at taxpayer expense.

Sessions- another political hack who has extremist views on discrimination and civil rights. Was rejected for a federal judgeship because of r****t views.

Zinke- No real experience in land management, and wants to open almost all federal land to exploitation by petro and mining interests at the expense of the environment.

Perdue- absolutely no experience in government. Former chicken rancher with no concept of how the farm economies of the midwest operate.

This is a partial list, and I could find many more if I wanted to spend the time. If this is your idea of 'well-qualified', then I'd h**e to have to work for you. But you are right in one respect ... they are a good fit for Trump's agenda.

One point to remember out of all this ... people who are insecure in their positions and abilities will always have people that are inferior to them in ability, so as to not jeopardize their own standing. And with this president, that bar is set waaaaaaaaaaaay too low.

You coverd the comparisons of Ob and Trump choices of National Security Advisors.

"Obama put in a bunch of color coded sycophants to serve him and that's just one more reason why he was such a failure. Between Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Clapper, and his other yes-people, they did exactly what Obama wanted. They weren't qualified. Trump's nominees are all qualified. Trump is merely now getting people in those positions who are good fits with his agenda." - waltmoreno

Just be aware of what the CFR promotes; A NWO. Trump better pay attention to that.

If Trump's agenda is to drain the swamp, he's got to get non-swamp people in there to get the job done. So, as you correctly point out, Pruitt has a long history of suing the EPA. Pruitt would like for the EPA to disappear. And DeVos would also like to see the Dept of Education disappear as well. Govt run education has a monoply on education since it's taxpayer funded. And the lack of competition is the most persuasive argument to explain the failure of government screwells. Govt teachers are overwhelmingly die hard libs because there's no competition or push back in those schools. And so the screwells turn out inferior products. Get rid of the Dept of Education (and the teachers union) and we'll be better off. While's he's at it Trump should also get rid of all those alphabet sour agencies.

Trump seeks out the best people for each post. He doesn't want yes-men. He certainly isn't "insecure in {his} position and abilities". He has nothing to prove after leaving his mark on Manhatten and throughout the world. In accordance with his agenda, he'll put on his cabinet the best people possible. I think Bolton is an excellent choice. I also think Joseph DiGenova is also a welcome addition to his legal team. Both Bolton and DeGenova have been giving pre-nomination interviews about what they would do if they could. And both gentlemen were advocating, a take-no-prisoners approach. Gloves off, hand to hand, mortal combat. Both men can more than hold their own in a battle of ideas.
That's the kind of people Trump wants. People who can actually move the ball and not just mark time tweaking around the edges.
Trump will get the job done, despite all the opposition and headwinds he has to face. It's about encountering and solving problems. And Trump has no equal.